This entry refers to a departed era — a time when exciting records were set.All infomation here is for historical reference only.

It appears, at his current rate of edits, that he will reach this number in about two months. However, in July 2006, Philip appeared to be two months away from reaching the same value. What happened? As each day passes, Philip does fewer and fewer edits, and in the last 8 months has been editing fewer and fewer pages, and as a result the milestone has always appeared to be several months away. The purpose of this page is to explain this strange phenomenon.

Samples of the User Statistics page archived by the WayBack Machine were used to gather past statistics, and an almost-daily record of edits is currently being gathered.

And Philip is NOT allowed to edit this page to preserve the quality of future data.

The Philip Neustrom Theory

def. = There is a maximum possible number of edits that Philip Neustrom can make on the Davis Wiki.Is there a limit to the number of edits?

As he approaches this number, N, his editing rate decreases so that he approaches this number asymptotically, but never actually reaches it. The main question is whether this theoretical maximum lies above, below, or is equal to 10,000. Secondarily, it would be useful to pinpoint the reason for this phenomenon, so other wiki denizens can accurately predict and anticipate when we should all congratulate him on reaching such an incredible number of edits.

Some Calculations

Proposed Explanations

Feedback

Philip does not want to reach a certain number, perhaps 10,000, and so the closer he gets, the more he dissuades himself from editing. If true, then we may observe an increase in Philip's edits per day as he accepts that he may have to reach 10,000 edits someday. Seeing this page might cause such an acceptance of the inevitable to occur.

Philip Clones

A variant of this feedback hypothesis is that as his account gets closer and closer to 10,000, he utilizes clones - accounts that he has created and used over time, similar to Sockpuppets. Thus, he may actually be editing as frequently as before, but doing most of those edits with the other accounts.

Distraction

A closer look at 2006. Other projects are taking up Philip's time, and as time (t) increases, his number of distractions increases (or involvement in those distractions). Thus, his number of edits per day will continue to decrease. This explanation is compatible with the idea that there is an asymptote, and also the possibility that there is none at all. (There may be a maximum amount of distraction keeping his edits per day from declining below a certain threshhold.) It gains support from the fact that during the Summer of 2006, his edits per day first began to decline. However, there is a lack of data points during the fall of 2006 to determine whether this decline was actually sudden or gradual. If at some point one of these distractions end, we may see a sudden and sharp increase in his edits per day.

K-strategy

The Davis Wiki can only support a certain number of edits (K), such as how many members of a species can be supported by an ecosystem (click here for r/K selection explanation). As N approaches K, the rate of mortality of those edits gets closer to the rate of reproduction, and the population of edits approaches the maximum (K) more and more slowly. This explanation gets extra points for nuttiness, but it gains support from the fact that initially, Philips edits have been pretty constant at about 9-12 edits per day on average, and did not start its major decline until the edits were getting closer to the proposed maximum. If true, we may someday observe that if there is a major catastrophe or other wiki environmental change, Philip's edits may actually decline and approach a new value of K.

Some ways to Test the Philip Neustrom Theory

Will Philip Neustrom ever reach 10,000 edits? Discuss.

2007-03-19 15:36:53 If you look at Philip's userinfo, you can get more data points. Just look at the "offset" attribute in the URL and count 'em up! —BrentLaabs

2007-03-19 15:41:46 Wow ... someone either has too much time on his hands or has a thing for Philip. —KaiTing

2007-03-19 15:44:58 LOL, too much time. I noticed last summer that he was close to 10,000, and then all of a sudden he wasn't going to reach it. —KarlMogel

2007-03-19 15:54:50 I nominate this page as the next featured page! Good times! —DavidGrundler

2007-03-19 15:57:56 I propose an experiment: we make a whole bunch of minor mistakes on a bunch of pages and wait to see how long it takes him to overcome the "slump" and hit those pages till it pushes him over 10k. —WesHardaker

2007-03-19 16:25:52 As a comparison, I'd recommend you do the same treatment to JasonAller. His contributions seem to be going at a steady pace, if not more rapid recently. This page is reminding me that someone should update the Wiki Demographics page. I have my old data file should someone want to use it as a startingpoint. —CraigBrozinsky

2007-03-19 16:35:28 I have noticed the gap between them get smaller. I'll take a look. —KarlMogel

2007-03-19 19:49:57 I don't think philip's edits can approach any value _asymptotically_ unless there can be a non-integral number of edits. Otherwise he couldn't go above 9,999 edits without reaching or passing 10,000. —KenjiYamada

2007-03-19 20:53:16 Shhh! Ahem, so you're saying that decimal edits are possible? Perhaps instead, an open editing window will sit on Philip's screen and get closer and closer to being saved without actually being saved. —KarlMogel

2007-03-19 21:34:48 Maybe Philip knew he couldn't hit 10k so at an early point he created a clone (Jason) to handle all other edits near the point he got to 10k. The question is, who's the third clone? Ok. I'm officially procrastinating other things if I'm coming up with theories like this. —WesHardaker

2007-03-19 22:43:03 Things can change aymptotically in natural systems all of the time. If temperature aysmptotically approaches a value, it still takes discrete steps as energy is quantitized. In terms of the clone, I nominate AlphaDog. Can you say for sure that AlphaDog isn't really Philip? —BrentLaabs

Great Caesar's ghost, you may be onto something. None of us has ever seen AlphaDog and PhilipNeustrom at the same time. Philip, that grass skirt disguise might have tricked the others, but I'm no fool! :-) —CraigBrozinsky

2007-03-20 22:57:39 Judging by the drop-shadows behind his photos alone, there is no way AlphaDog is Philip. —MikeIvanov